New Info Regarding Opposition to the SAP Application
To:
Garden City Mayor John Evans
Garden City Council President James Page
Garden City Council Member Russ Heller
Garden City Council Member Bill Jacobs
Garden City Council Member Teresa Jorgensen
Garden City Planning Director Jenah Thornborrow
From:
Dan & Betty Hollar
N. Fair Oaks Pl.
Garden City, Idaho 83703
Date: June 4, 2023
Re: HIGH PRIORITY - New Information Regarding Opposition to Rezoning of River Club Property (SAP) Application (SAPFY2023-0001)
Thank you for your service to the citizens of Garden City and for considering the well-documented concerns of citizens regarding SAPFY2023-0001. This is a follow-up to the communication we sent you on:
As taxpayers, voting citizens of Garden City and members of the Plantation Homeowners Association, we are strongly opposed to SAPFY2023-0001, as we have communicated previously to you.
In addition, as part of your thorough public deliberations, analysis and duties to serve the citizens of Garden City first and foremost, please consider the following:
Plantation Homeowners Association
The Plantation Homeowners Association Master Declaration Contract remains valid, in effect and therefore operative. This means the Master Declaration Contract requires that the property rights of homeowners in the neighborhood need to be addressed for any changes in zoning or for development by any member of “The Plantation” development—including the golf course—which is a property owner in the neighborhood. Therefore, the owner or owners of the property are prevented from developing the property because of constraints and prohibitions contained in the Master Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions applicable to all lots in the Plantation neighborhoods. The golf course property is a "lot" subject to those limitations, and therefore the owner of the golf course property is subject to those limitations, as are other property owners.
With the aforementioned in mind, it is worth noting that in the Plantation Master Association Newsletter dated June 2013 it is written that HOA CC&Rs are enforceable and it references how the Idaho State Supreme Court agrees "in the many cases that have come before it…" (see page 2).
Please note that Kent Brown was the Plantation Master Association Director at Large at the time this newsletter was published, and, as current Vice Chair of Garden City’s Planning and Zoning Commission, Kent Brown also voted for the approval of the SAPFY2023-0001 application on May 24, 2023.
Specific Area Plan (SAP) Applicability
The (SAP) as it stands in Garden City Code, or as proposed in the second instance—the proposed Amendment to Code, is not consistent with the letter or the spirit of the State Special Use Permit (SUP) Statute.
The property in the application does not meet the City’s definition as to where an SAP is applicable. Under Ordinance No. 8-6B-6 Specific Area Plan, “an SAP application is encouraged for the development or redevelopment of properties defined in Garden City Comprehensive Plan as Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Activity Nodes, or as Neighborhood Destination Activity Nodes, or as Future Planning Areas”. The 22 acres in the SAP application does NOT meet this requirement. In Garden City’s Comprehensive Plan, Page 37, the Future Zoning Map identifies the 22 acres as “Open Space/Park” not a “Future Planning Area”.
Additionally, Pierce Park is NOT a TOD Activity Node in the State Street Corridor Study. The study identifies 4 TOD Activity Nodes; they are at Whitewater, Collister, Glenwood and Horseshoe Bend roads, as has been verified by Valley Regional Transit.
Furthermore, the State Street Corridor Study recommends higher density within a ¼ mile of TOD Activity Nodes and therefore it is not applicable to the 22 acres proposed in the SAP application (especially NOT the area OFF of State Street that adjoins the Plantation Neighborhood near North Fair Oaks Place—identified as Phase 3 of the proposed development).
There is some relevance in the application to the Neighborhood Destination Activity Node, which is on the Comprehensive Plan Future Zoning Map and is identified as State Street and Pierce Park (identified as Phases 1 and 2 of the proposed development). However, it certainly does NOT extend off of State Street near North Fair Oaks Place or Charleston in the Plantation Subdivision (identified as Phase 3 of the proposed development).
For the aforementioned reasons, Phase 3 should be removed, and returned to the original proposal that was referenced in our October 16, 2022 communication (see the image provided by developer dated July 2019). In short, Phase 3 is a threat to the existing neighborhood with no functional SAP purpose.
Furthermore, this SAP Application is in direct conflict with numerous requirements and goals as stated in Garden City Municipal Code Title 8 Development Code, specifically:
Section 8-4A-1 – Purpose: “ A) To ensure that the development of property protects the public, health, safety and welfare of the community; B) To protect property values and rights of all residents; C) To protect and enhance the community’s assets and natural resources.”
Section 8-6B-6 Specific Area Plan: “The goal of this section is to ensure the orderly planning and development of land, by REQUIRING new development to:
Implement the goals and objectives of the city’s Comprehensive Plan, including the Future Land Use Map;
Contribute to the social, economic and environmental sustainability of the city; Develop in a manner that is highly respectful of the natural setting; that is at a human scale and ensures neighborhood compatibility;
Designate and protect open site area in perpetuity;
Remain consistent with the intent of this title.”
The SAP application DOES NOT MEET the requirements for an SAP and it certainly does not protect the health, safety and welfare of the community and is certainly NOT compatible with the existing neighborhood.
The legal property in question is close to 243 acres and the “Master Plan” of the full 243 acres should be included in the SAP application, per applicable Garden City Code, unless the proposed 22 acres is being subdivided but we have not seen an application in that regard. The proposed 22 acres is being split out for spot zoning, which constitutes improper “spot zoning” under Idaho case law. Garden City’s own Rezone website specifically and clearly states: “The essential things to keep in mind is that the rezone can’t constitute ‘spot zoning’, and it must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.” This proposed development is NOT compatible with Garden City’s Comprehensive Plan, as indicated in this communication to you and in our previous communications to you.
The elimination of a Future Land Use Map area identified for "Future Parks/Open Space" and "Green Boulevard Corridor" by a small, localized and inconsistent zoning area, will have the effect of applying unique benefits upon a single out-of-state developer, at the expense of negative impacts to existing neighbors and Garden City citizens, and could constitute "Type Two" spot zoning under Idaho case law.Thrusting Phase 3 into a developed R2 neighborhood is readily discernible as Type II spot zoning.
This proposal runs counter to the spirit, intent and goals of Garden City’s Comprehensive Plan, including goals 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10, as has been clearly communicated to you by Attorney David Leroy in his letter dated April 17, 2023 and letter dated April 26, 2023.
Summary
Garden City Council should NOT make the findings required under Garden City Ordinance and Development Code Section 8-6B-6, Specific Area Plan, to approve this Application. Per Garden City Municipal Code Title 8 Development Code all of the six factual findings stated therein must be made. This proposal fails, in that it:
Is not "consistent with the Garden City Comprehensive Plan, as amended, including the future land use map"...
Does not promote "the orderly planning and development of land. ...", and
Does not comply "with all city zoning regulations and codes in effect at the time of the SAP application."
Garden City Code clearly states:
"If an application does not meet one or more of the criteria above, the application shall be denied, and the reason the application does not meet the finding or findings shall be in writing."
Thank you for your attention to this very important matter.
Please don't hesitate to contact us should you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Dan & Betty Hollar